How Will Campbell Be Handled?

I doubt if we'll see Cambell at all in 06'...he's third string and Collins would play before he does. I think that Gibbs didn't intend to play Cambell when he drafted him; he was more of insurance for Ramsey who's days were numbered. Brunell is the guy as long as Gibbs is here...I pridict that Gibbs and Brunell will both leave around the same time.

I doubt if we'll see Cambell at all in 06'...he's third string and Collins would play before he does. I think that Gibbs didn't intend to play Cambell when he drafted him; he was more of insurance for Ramsey who's days were numbered. Brunell is the guy as long as Gibbs is here...I pridict that Gibbs and Brunell will both leave around the same time.

Well, I see what you are saying, but remember that Gibbs gave up a lot to get Campbell, so he must at least be considering turning over the reins to him sometime before he goes. But for right now, it's Brunell and that's all that matters.

This thread has turned into more of a controversy about Brunell than I had intended when I wrote Post One. Apparently, a significant number of you don't feel that the Skins need to get Campbell ready for the starting role this next season. I hope the coaches aren't thinking that way.

Brunell's legs are as important in his game as his arm. In his two years with the Redskins, most of his games were played with nagging injuries: hamstring pull, calf injury, knee strain. The odds against his playing the 2006 season unhampered by injury are high. This problem, super-imposed over the natural decline of his 36 year-old body ought to tell us that he can't be counted on to perform at a peak level next season.

It seems to me that the Skins can kill two birds with one stone. By working Campbell into action gradually, Brunell can be kept fresh and ready to play with rest in between starts against the toughest defenses on our schedule.

The alternatives are to wait for Brunell to go down and start Campbell raw or start Collins.

Unless the glowing reports about Campbell coming from Redskin Park are bull, there's no good reason not to get him ready this year.

He needs to play to get ready. Two years of holding a clipboard makes no sense if he's truly our franchise QB.

This thread has turned into more of a controversy about Brunell than I had intended when I wrote Post One. Apparently, a significant number of you don't feel that the Skins need to get Campbell ready for the starting role this season. I hope the coaches aren't thinking that way.

Brunell's legs are as important in his game as his arm. In his two years with the Redskins, most of his games were played with nagging injuries: hamstring pull, calf injury, knee strain. The odds against his playing the 2006 season unhampered by injury are high. This problem, super-imposed over the natural decline of his 36 year-old body ought to tell us that he can't be counted on to perform at a peak level next season.

It seems to me that the Skins can kill two birds with one stone. By working Campbell into action gradually, Brunell can be kept fresh and ready to play with rest in between starts against the toughest defenses on our schedule.

The alternatives are to wait for Brunell to go down and start Campbell raw or start Collins.

Unless the glowing reports about Campbell coming from Redskin Park are bull, there's no good reason not to get him ready this year.

He needs to play to get ready. Two years of holding a clipboard makes no sense if he's truly our franchise QB.

How do you suggest they do this? By having a QB platoon?

This isn't college, as long as Brunell is playing and playing well, he will be the unquestioned starter. Campbell is going to have to get ready as he can by learning on the bench and soaking up as much as he can with mental reps. I just don't see him playing much this year especially if Brunell is playing well and the team is in the playoff hunt.

Two years of holding a clipboard makes sense if you have a capable veteran ahead of him and the team is geared up for a Super Bowl run.

Coming out of college Campbell was considered a bit of a project who could benefit by sitting for a year or two. I just don't understand why some people feel the need to rush him along, like if he's not playing this year he's already a bust.

Let's also remember that Gibbs is an old school coach who isn't afraid to let his QBs sit and learn.

How do you suggest they do this? By having a QB platoon?

This isn't college, as long as Brunell is playing and playing well, he will be the unquestioned starter. Campbell is going to have to get ready as he can by learning on the bench and soaking up as much as he can with mental reps. I just don't see him playing much this year especially if Brunell is playing well and the team is in the playoff hunt.

Two years of holding a clipboard makes sense if you have a capable veteran ahead of him and the team is geared up for a Super Bowl run.

Coming out of college Campbell was considered a bit of a project who could benefit by sitting for a year or two. I just don't understand why some people feel the need to rush him along, like if he's not playing this year he's already a bust.

Let's also remember that Gibbs is an old school coach who isn't afraid to let his QBs sit and learn.

I agree on all counts. A QB rotation isn't going to work in the NFL (just ask Spurrier......how'd we do when almost every week we had a different starter?).

I also don't see what the big rush is. Are the reports out of Redskin Park great for Campbell? Of course they are. What are they going to do? Say "wow, this guy sucks. I can't believe we wasted a first round pick on him. What a moron."? Of course not. But all of the scouting reports on him before we drafted him called into question his ability to learn and master an NFL offense. There were serious concerns about his ability to retain the amount of information that is encompassed within an NFL offense (since his college coach had to run a more simplified version of their offense for him at Auburn).

For someone who may be having a tough time taking it all in and mastering the offense, two years of clipboard service is exactly what would do him the most good. He's got the physical tools, we all agree with that. But if you put him in there before he's mentally prepared with 235 lb linebackers and 300 lb linemen trying to kill him, you're putting him in a hole he's not likely to be able to climb out of.

Brunell got us into the playoffs last year. I agree with some comments that we got there and beat the Bucs in spite of Brunell, not because of Brunell. But I also agree that he didn't have the tools to continue to shine the way he did early in the season. With our current WR corp, and praying for a healthy O-line, I see no reason why Brunell can't be our guy this year. Could he get injured? Sure. So could Randy Thomas. So could Santana Moss. So could Shawn Springs. They all have before, but does that mean we try pushing their backups in ahead of them simply because the backup is younger and may have to take over for them if they got injured? I'd say no. You play your starters and you worry about injuries when they happen, and you hope that you've done an adequate job of adding depth to your roster to cover such circumstances.

Mattyk72

How do you suggest they do this? By having a QB platoon?
Why not? The Frye/Dilfer platoon worked out well. When you have to pay the price for inexperience sooner or later, this is a way to minimize the disadvantage.

This isn't college, as long as Brunell is playing and playing well, he will be the unquestioned starter.
If Brunell was 28 with fresh legs, I'd agree.

Two years of holding a clipboard makes sense if you have a capable veteran ahead of him and the team is geared up for a Super Bowl run.
The implied assumptions in your comment are: 1) the capable vet will play at his peak level for an entire season, 2) the young QB will play at a significantly lower level even though his health and athletic ability exceeds the veteran's.

Coming out of college Campbell was considered a bit of a project who could benefit by sitting for a year or two. I just don't understand why some people feel the need to rush him along, like if he's not playing this year he's already a bust.
IMO working your franchise QB into the lineup gradually in year two isn't "rushing" him.

Let's also remember that Gibbs is an old school coach who isn't afraid to let his QBs sit and learn.
I agree with the others who said that if JoeGibbs has the final say on this, it will be Brunell. However, I have a hard time believing that an OC with Al Saunders resume' would take a job where he didn't have the final say on who he plays.

Why not? The Frye/Dilfer platoon worked out well. When you have to pay the price for inexperience sooner or later, this is a way to minimize the disadvantage.


Yah, when we had the Matthews, Weurffel (sp?), Ramsey rotation, we were unstoppable.

Mattyk72
Why not? The Frye/Dilfer platoon worked out well. When you have to pay the price for inexperience sooner or later, this is a way to minimize the disadvantage.

LOL how many wins did that spectacular Frye/Dilfer platoon work out to?

QB platoons in the pros don't work, look no further than Spurrier's handling of our QB situation in 2003. When was the last time you saw a QB platoon get a team to the Super Bowl?

Playing musical chairs with your QB in the pros usually means a couple of things,

#1 You don't have a true #1 guy
#2 Your team probably stinks
#3 You're battling injuries

We're not the 2005 Browns. We have a team that has serious Super Bowl potential, and you want to take a step back at the QB position now?

When Brunell was brought in it was assumed he would be here for 3 years. Based on the way his contract was structured and considering his age. The 3 year plan for Brunell seems to be working out perfectly as the team has been built up around him to the point now where we seem primed to take a serious shot at winning it all.

Campbell's time will come in 2007 as Brunell will likely be gone after this year. But for right now, you have to take your best shot while the window of opportunity is still open.

Yah, when we had the Matthews, Weurffel (sp?), Ramsey rotation, we were unstoppable.

Irrelevant.

We are here discussing a completely different, and less-than-ideal, situation.

Did you mis-read my remarks as a claim that platooning Brunell and Campbell would make us unstoppable...or is this a strawman argument you've created?

Of course this could all fly out the window if Campbell plays his ass off in the preseason and flat out beats out Brunell, but I think that's highly unlikely.